Crossfire would imply that two or more opposing parties are exchanging gunfire, and that the bystander was located directly in between them. I think the term “stray bullet” would work for a much broader range of scenarios. That's just my interpretation though.
–
DoresoomNov 1 '12 at 18:45

5

@Doresoom I agree that stray bullet would work for a broader range of scenarios. But OP specifically used the word gunfight, which would require more than one shooter.
–
amacyNov 1 '12 at 19:35

1

@NewAlexandria I'm sorry but I don't see how that link demonstrates that a gunfight can involve only one person. Also, both Mirriam-Webster and the OED (a fight involving an exchange of fire with guns) specify guns.
–
amacyNov 1 '12 at 21:20

6

The number of combatants is not relevant. Crossfire in no way implies an accidental shooting. In fact crossfire is the main purpose of the 4 Fs (find, fix, flank, finish). Stray bullet is a far more suitable choice for the stated question.
–
horatioNov 1 '12 at 21:24

4

While one can be hit accidentally in the crossfire, there can be crossfire without anyone getting hit. So clearly, the term for a bystander getting hit is not crossfire.
–
JimNov 2 '12 at 7:13

Well you wrote it! Not that I'm downvoting the answer, but I think amacy's is better because it includes crossfire as well (not necessarily good for OP's "lone gunman" context, but closely related).
–
FumbleFingersNov 1 '12 at 20:05

lol, no problem. "The bystander was hit multiple times by stray gunfire" or "Multiple stray bullets struck the bystander". I think I prefer the first one in this example.
–
ThinkingMediaNov 1 '12 at 20:08

I think this describes the imprecision of the shooter, not the striking of a bystander.
–
New AlexandriaNov 1 '12 at 20:57

missed StoneyB's comment-answer. It's the term that most-directly addresses the hitting of a non-target by a bullet (or other attack). I don't think that there is any term that more-directly denotes this hitting specific to gunfire.
–
New AlexandriaNov 1 '12 at 20:54

Collateral Damage is more about damage that happens in addition to the intended damage. Like with a bomb that hits its target. This is a miss
–
ChadNov 2 '12 at 19:18

If you are talking about an actual gunfight, as in two groups exchange gunfire, then the appropriate term would be crossfire as in caught in the crossfire.

While the term may technically mean somebody between the two groups, colloquial use will often include people that are merely within a reasonable area of conflict.

Collateral Damage is a US military concept, and while it does apply to what you are talking, it also applies to other actions that can injure or kill innocent bystanders. e.g. "The soldiers did not call in an air strike, as there would be too much collateral damage"

Welcome to the site! This answer is rather similar to one or more answers already given. Also, be keen to the subtleties of the questions, particularly when your first thoughts are already present in others answer - and none are yet accepted. It often means the OP is asking something else. In this case, the OP is asking for a verb that means 'hitting' in context to gunfights.
–
New AlexandriaNov 2 '12 at 4:10

Random implies probability which I don't think works if the person is hit while inline of site of the shooter, but you could say "the person was hit by a random bullet as it ricochet around the room". Something like that might work.
–
ThinkingMediaNov 1 '12 at 20:11

A "sporadic bullet" if you want to sound pretentious.
–
Mateen UlhaqNov 2 '12 at 4:12

"Random" in the sense of accidental/ not aimed at. Just don't understand the reason for the down voting. Any sensitivity to the word "random"?
–
misensalemNov 2 '12 at 10:46